Jack Chick: Three Awesome Questions

You’re familiar with the creationist comics of Jack Chick, which you can read online from the links in this post: Creationist Comic Books. Chick is the purveyor extraordinaire of the most mindless, theologically primitive version of raw, young-earth creationism that can be found anywhere. If you haven’t yet seen them, you really should. They’re classics — especially Big Daddy?

Because Chick is the world’s greatest theologian, philosopher, illustrator, communicator, and creationist, this morning we were examining his newsletter, Battle Cry. In that majestic repository of creationist lore we came upon this new article: Basic Questions Evolutionists Can’t Answer.

It’s written by Thomas Heinze. He’s obviously a favorite of Chick’s, because his work has appeared there before. The last time we told you about one of his essays was A Test To Disprove Evolution. Let’s waste no more time on introductions. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Evolutionists wake up each morning to tiptoe around important problems their worldview won’t let them resolve. Here are three basic examples:

Got your attention, huh? Okay, here are three problems you try to avoid:

Matter: where did everything come from? Evolutionists generally follow the atheists in saying: “From the Big Bang, an explosion.” They convince themselves that a made-up explosion called the Big Bang which exists only in their imagination was different from all explosions that people have actually observed.

Huh? The Big Bang wasn’t like all the other explosions we’ve seen? Let’s read on:

They think the Big Bang produced matter! Explosions that we observe don’t produce matter. Real estate people don’t drop bombs on houses to fix leaky roofs. Explosions don’t do anything like what evolutionists claim the Big Bang did.

Admit it, dear reader — you’ve been a fool! We continue to the next question:

Life: how did it start and how does it work? Evolutionists accept the atheist’s claim that some of the matter produced by the imagined big bang came together and made a living cell which then evolved becoming different kinds of cells, animals, and highly intelligent people like you.

Heinze has a few more paragraphs on that one, but we’ll skip that stuff so we can get to the third big question you’ve been tiptoeing around: Here it comes:

Sex: who came first — a him or a her? Which evolved first, male sex organs or female sex organs?

Gotcha! You can’t answer, can you? Let’s read some more:

Male sex organs are so different from female sex organs that neither could possibly have evolved from the other. Neither could either have evolved without the other! Think that through!

Sexual reproduction could only have been successful if male and female organs fit one another and worked together at each stage from their very beginning. The only reasonable explanation is that both were created on purpose by an intelligent Creator.

This isn’t the first time Heinze has made that point. It seems to be very much on his mind. For his prior essay, see Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare You gotta admit — the guy has a winning argument. Here’s the climax of the article:

If there had been even one generation in which sexual reproduction was not already complete and functioning, those who believe that it gradually evolved would not even exist!

So there you are, dear reader. You want evidence for creationism? Then look down — it’s in your pants!

Whenever I hear this version of the “big bang” (and sadly, I’ve heard it before)… I always ask them “What exploded?”

So far I have never gotten a response. Of course, the whole point is that nothing actually exploded. The big bang is merely the expansion of space time (merely!).

Anyway, it’s fairly obvious that these clowns have no idea what the actual scientific explanation is. hence the whole thing is a strawman.

As far as abiogenesis, there are hundred of papers published every year exploring this concept and so far, not only has nothing ever been found that would say “It can’t happen”, but almost every step has multiple chemical pathways that could generate the required product.

I won’t even get into the sex organs. I mean, even bacteria have sex… sort of.

Which came first, a him or a her? I think this is a good question for a creationist. The bible clearly states that Adam was made first. However, it also clearly states that, after making all the animals, “But for Adam no suitable helper was found. … Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”

My question is; if Eve was an afterthought, and only made because none of the animals were suitable as a helper to tend the garden, did Adam have sex organs when he was originally made? If so, why? What did God originally intend for him to do with those organs, before he decided to make a woman? Inquiring minds want to know.

There’s a famous bit in The Great Dictator (bear with me) where Chaplin, as Tomainian dictator Adenoid Hynkel, is delivering a frenzied tirade. It’s so feverish that even the microphones bend and melt. He pauses to drink a glass of ice water to refresh his throat, and tellingly pours the rest of the pitcher down his pants. His genitals are as overheated as his tonsils. The late critic Gerald Mast wrote, “With this gesture Chaplin implies that the Nazi mania had as much to do with the sex organs as with words, and more to do with either than with ideas.”

I’m not making any Hitler analogies. That’s not my intention at all; there’s too much of that already in civil discourse. I’m just pointing out that all extremists — political, religious, what-have-you, (and Jack Chick’s views would certainly qualify as extreme to a reasonable person), have this in common. It all boils down to the groin eventually. In case you were wondering how a supposedly rational (Hah!) discussion of The Big Bang (no pun intended) could end up in someone’s hypothetical pants.

Here’s the climax of the article:

You’re not kidding! With extremists, all roads eventually lead to Rome.

Try this … substitute the word ‘creationist’ for ‘evolutionist’ and its variants. Then substitute ‘God’ for ‘Big Bang’ and its variants.

They think that God produced matter! God that we observe doesn’t produce matter. Real estate people don’t drop God on houses to fix leaky roofs. God doesn’t do anything like what Creationistsclaim that God did.

The point is they don’t know the answers to these questions either. Godditit is a pretty empty answer when the comeback is ‘who made God, with what?’

Religious zealots can’t make up their minds as to whether they’re for or against ‘The Big Bang’. Some of them claim it as a religious concept (the beginning of creation, etc.) while others see it as a scientific theory that goes against their creationist beliefs. Some IDiots, for instance, regularly argue that ‘The Big Bang’ supports their “inference” (actually just a creationist/dominionist agenda) because it establishes a ‘beginning’ that could only have come about via the direct action of “the designer” (aka god).

But… but… male and female genitalia have homologous structures…
Seriously, this guy makes me sick. He is so sure of himself, despite the fact that he literally knows nothing about anything he talks about.

Caleb says, “But… but… male and female genitalia have homologous structures…”.
Poor Mrs. Heinze. However, Heinze and Chic exemplify why sex education must not be left up to parents. What will you bet that sex education deniers are a subgroup of evolution deniers?

(I recognize that Ed is not a creationist, and I’m not trying to pick a fight with him. This is just to bring up a minor curiosity.)

Actually, this is one of the cases where the two different Genesis creation stories are in conflict. For Genesis 1:27 (the P story) says that God created both male and female. Some people have even taken this to signify that God created humans as hermaphrodites.

TomS, there are up to a total of four possible Eves. The first is the hemaphrodite, the second is Lilith (the text says, “No suitable helper could be found,” so there must’ve been an unsuitable one. QED), the third is a creature Adam saw created from the marrow to the skin and rejected, and the fourth was the final Eve. All have some support in either Jewish or Christian tradition.

One thing which all the creationists have in common is an expectation of ignorance on the part if their. Unfortunately, they are correct much of the time. Creationists clearly work to maintain, or even increase, the level of ignorance in their audience.

My understanding is that the shape of the penis and the thrusting action of intercourse evolved the specific function of removing the semen from any previous partners. This impeaches the Jack Chick tract in two ways. The first is that this is what one would specifically expect as a consequence of evolution (biological functionality that increases reproductive success) The second is if this is the intelligent design of God then it follows humans aren’t a monogamous species.

This blog's RSS feed link:

Search for:

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Commenting Rules

Creationists should read the rules before posting any comments. See Comment Rules.

Here's how to use the available codes. Note that codes are used in pairs, to turn the effect on and then off again. Please don’t start one of these codes without closing it:

For italics:

<em>text</em>

For bold:

<strong>text</strong>

For strikethrough:

<del>text</del>

For blockquotes:

<blockquote>this will appear both indented and in italics</blockquote>